Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology

AUG 2017

An evidence-based, peer-reviewed journal for practicing clinicians in the field of dermatology

Issue link: http://jcadonline.epubxp.com/i/870497

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 16 of 67

adapting nonoptimal treatment recommendations to asian patients with very different physical presentations, issues, and expectations. this consensus aims to provide much-needed recommendations on aesthetic interventions and combination treatment algorithms for asian patients, with a particular focus on the application of botulinum toxin a (Bont-a), injectable fillers, and microfocused ultrasound with visualization (MfU-V). consensus MethodologY eleven physicians ("experts") with experience in treating asian patients were guided by a certified moderator to discuss combination therapy in asian populations. the experts voted on recommendations for early intervention/ enhancement, restoration, and beautification and sought to achieve consensus on combination treatment strategies for the modification of different facial shapes (oval/heart, oblong/rectangular, round, square) to the ideal oval shape (figure 1). signed patient consent to publish all photos included in this article was obtained by the authors. the recommendations focused on therapy combining Bont-a (incobotulinumtoxina, Xeomin®, Merz pharmaceuticals Gmbh, frankfurt am Main, Germany), calcium hydroxylapatite (caha, radiesse®, Merz north america, Inc., raleigh, north carolina, United states), hyaluronic acid fillers (ha, Belotero® Intense, marketed as fortélis extra in taiwan, and Belotero® soft, marketed as esthélis soft in taiwan; manufactured by anteis s.a., Geneva, switzerland, a wholly owned subsidiary of Merz pharmaceuticals Gmbh, frankfurt, Germany), and MfU-V (Ultherapy®, Ulthera Inc., Mesa, arizona, United states). the experts were from hong Kong, taiwan, south Korea, thailand, India, australia, Germany, and the United states, and had several years of working experience with all interventions (Bont- a: average 4.8 years, range 1–10 years; ha: average 4.1 years, range 0.5–10 years; caha: average 5.3 years, range 1–8 years; MfU-V devices: average 2.5 years, range 0.5–5 years). Before the meeting, the experts completed a 17 JCAD journAl oF clinicAl And Aesthetic derMAtologY august 2017 • Volume 10 • number 8 c o n s e n s U s Figure 1. Common face shape categories the ace shape categories for women (top) and men (bottom). five classical face shapes are widely recognized regardless of geography, age, or gender. the oval and heart are considered ideal for women. (photos courtesy of Merz pharmaceuticals Gmbh.)

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology - AUG 2017